Re: [tied] H4 - identity? Existance?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There certainly was *something* that, in identical contexts,

gave

> > two
> > > different results in Hittitle. There are many cases where we
> expet
> > to find a
> > > laryngeal, and it just isn't there, and others where we eon't
> > expect to find
> > > one, and it is there. H4, if it exsted at all, was probably

one

> of
> > the early
> > > casualties in the loss of laryngeals.
> > >
> >
> > Myself I'd get into trouble with my claim that the PIE water

word

> > *(H)ap-/*(H)akW- was related to PIE direction adverbs (preverbs,
> > prepositions), since in the former sense Hittite has h_ap- with
> > laryngeal, in the latter ap-. But if I claim they are both loans
> and
> > wanderwörter, the trouble goes away; they might have been

loaned

> > from separate donors.
> >
> >
> > Torsten
> >
>
> I really doubt this fact in relation with the 'water' word:

knowing

> the kW/a,o > p is a phonetic transformation that happens in many
> languages (see as example Ancient Greek, Celtic-P dialects and

maybe

> also Romanian ex. quatro~patru '4') this seems for me an internal

PIE

> evolution that maybe happened in PIE Pre-Historic times

If it's PIE pre-historic, ie. pre-PIE, then it's not internal PIE.
Besides, the u- of Lith. upe "water" would be difficult to explain,
unless one assumes a loan from the (Semitic?) substrate ar-/ur-
language.


Torsten